How do people feel that these two teachings relate and don't relate? I really enjoy reading Daoism and especially teachings from the Complete Reality school. I love the direct nature of these teachings and feel they reflect much of what I read in Dzogchen texts. I also love the open attitude I've found in the Book of Balance and Harmony translated by John Cleary, where there is talk of the equality of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. I find this to contrast with a lot of the triumphalist rhetoric in Buddhism, however I am labeling neither of these things as good or bad in themselves, I just love the different points of view for what they are.

wisdom wrote:How do people feel that these two teachings relate and don't relate? I really enjoy reading Daoism and especially teachings from the Complete Reality school. I love the direct nature of these teachings and feel they reflect much of what I read in Dzogchen texts. I also love the open attitude I've found in the Book of Balance and Harmony translated by John Cleary, where there is talk of the equality of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. I find this to contrast with a lot of the triumphalist rhetoric in Buddhism, however I am labeling neither of these things as good or bad in themselves, I just love the different points of view for what they are.

I don't really know. I did read a fair bit of Daoism in my early and pre Buddhist days. Two things I would consider is, that in regards to view, meditation and action, in my ignorance of Daoist meditation, it seems to me that Dzogchen does offer a clear path of meditation based on primal purity. The other thing, as I understand it is that kadak is the ground, path and fruition in Dzogchen, I don't know if the same can be said of Daoism. I'm not trying to put down Daoism at all. I'm just trying to make sure there is clarity when addressing both. Who's to know. I'm sure it will spark some sort of discussion. Hopefully someone can shine a little more light on the subject.

"When a Dzogchen Yogi hears Shakyamuni Buddha turning the Wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths he hears Samathabhadra proclaiming the most profound Dzogpachenpo." - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche

Taoism and Dzogchen have nothing to do with each other at all (Dzogchen and Zen have much more in common and they are really different means to Buddahhood).

Taosim is one of the highest pinnacles of the non-Buddhist schools but it is an eternalist school, albeit an eternalist "energy"-based school. In general qi (chi) is refined to attain a form of enlightenment although this is not Buddhist enlightenment.

The statement that Taoist enlightenment and Buddhist enlightenment are different are a conclusion of mine but they are also the words of my former Taoist teacher and his teacher. At that time I was just more interested in doing the specific meditation that can be used for health purposes (so I need to fit that back into my routine) but is then progressively refined to "be have a more and more spiritual" effect (it's spiritual from the beginning but in the beginning the main results are health and strong samadhi).

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

wisdom wrote:How do people feel that these two teachings relate and don't relate? I really enjoy reading Daoism and especially teachings from the Complete Reality school. I love the direct nature of these teachings and feel they reflect much of what I read in Dzogchen texts. I also love the open attitude I've found in the Book of Balance and Harmony translated by John Cleary, where there is talk of the equality of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. I find this to contrast with a lot of the triumphalist rhetoric in Buddhism, however I am labeling neither of these things as good or bad in themselves, I just love the different points of view for what they are.

Posting this question on a Buddhist forum is sure to provoke said triumphalism, much as it always has when Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, etc. is mentioned. I find these same texts you mention tremendously enjoyable and clear and that's enough for me. I long since gave up giving a damn what other Buddhists think of it. My own root guru was very clear that all of these symbol systems lead to the same place if properly understood, and that there was no reason or benefit to making exclusive claims about truth. It really strikes me as a kind of insecurity to think that there is only one approach to the truth that transcends words.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

kirtu wrote:Taoism and Dzogchen have nothing to do with each other at all (Dzogchen and Zen have much more in common and they are really different means to Buddahhood).

Taosim is one of the highest pinnacles of the non-Buddhist schools but it is an eternalist school, albeit an eternalist "energy"-based school. In general qi (chi) is refined to attain a form of enlightenment although this is not Buddhist enlightenment.

The statement that Taoist enlightenment and Buddhist enlightenment are different are a conclusion of mine but they are also the words of my former Taoist teacher and his teacher. At that time I was just more interested in doing the specific meditation that can be used for health purposes (so I need to fit that back into my routine) but is then progressively refined to "be have a more and more spiritual" effect (it's spiritual from the beginning but in the beginning the main results are health and strong samadhi).

Kirt

My understanding is different, although I've never sought out a Daoist teacher. There are many references to emptiness in the translations I'm reading by John Cleary. The two truths in Daoism appear to be called Real Knowledge and Conscious Knowledge, which is basically knowledge of the absolute and the relative. It speaks repeatedly of merging these two. This to me sounds like the Buddhist teaching on the two truths and ones understanding of emptiness. It says that attaching to one side or the other produces extremes, although it does not specifically mention nihilism and eternalism. However it does mention that once you establish phenomena as empty, you need to then seek out the experience and essence of this emptiness, otherwise you will fall into Nihilism, falsely believing that everything is just a big void. So to me, this sounds like at least some schools in Daoism accord with Buddhisms understanding of ultimate reality.

And although there is much mention made of achieving immortality and such, it seems to acknowledge that even such a state is only as durable as the age of the universe, and if the universe ends, so will any immortality you might have achieved. I believe the statement was that your life span will become as long as the span of the life of the universe.

I do love the teachings on energy, I find them clear, concise, and to the point. I also enjoy how Daoism makes a distinction between Inner and Outer "Medicines". The outer being transformative energies related to the physical body, the latter being transformative energies related to mind and spirit. In the translations of Cleary, there is also repeated statements saying that the true medicine, the gold elixer, the pill, and so forth is nothing other than abiding in your own ultimate nature, which is free from mental constructs, elaborations, symbols, projections, and is open and spontaneous. To me this sounds like its saying that the ultimate method of skillful means whereby one heals affliction is to abide in Rigpa (if we translated it into Dzogchen terms).

wisdom wrote:How do people feel that these two teachings relate and don't relate? I really enjoy reading Daoism and especially teachings from the Complete Reality school. I love the direct nature of these teachings and feel they reflect much of what I read in Dzogchen texts. I also love the open attitude I've found in the Book of Balance and Harmony translated by John Cleary, where there is talk of the equality of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. I find this to contrast with a lot of the triumphalist rhetoric in Buddhism, however I am labeling neither of these things as good or bad in themselves, I just love the different points of view for what they are.

Posting this question on a Buddhist forum is sure to provoke said triumphalism, much as it always has when Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, etc. is mentioned. I find these same texts you mention tremendously enjoyable and clear and that's enough for me. I long since gave up giving a damn what other Buddhists think of it. My own root guru was very clear that all of these symbol systems lead to the same place if properly understood, and that there was no reason or benefit to making exclusive claims about truth. It really strikes me as a kind of insecurity to think that there is only one approach to the truth that transcends words.

True, but I'm OK with triumphalism. I think its perfectly natural to choose a system and then think its the best, and experience shows that Buddhism is indeed very good and quite possibly the best in terms of the variety of teachings and methods it offers and its ability to help a wide range of people. Daoism seems to be very cryptic in places, and very direct in others, which in either case is going to make it less accessible for the beginner than Buddhism. In Buddhism anyone can start by contemplating the four noble truths, the links of DO, emptiness, and things like the four thoughts that turn the mind and Bodhicitta. Furthermore one does not need any really special instruction or understanding in order to grasp these concepts and even share them with others, but only an intellectual understanding is required at first. In Daoism it seems to either be a lot of deep symbolism connected to the system or statements about the absolute which will often just lead people into confusion. In the former an explanation would be required, and in the latter real experience is required.

It seems to me that overall when it refers to the "Mind of Dao" it is referring to our true mind, our true nature. There is some triumphalism in the books I"m reading though, there have been a few references to Buddhism focusing too much on Emptiness and therefore producing many Nihilists, and in that case the texts emphasize integration of ones experience with the world. However, this sounds just like Dzogchen which doesn't stop at the realization of emptiness, but tries to integrate the experience into everything the practitioner does.

greentara wrote:karma dorje, Thanks for the wise words and right attitude "It really strikes me as a kind of insecurity to think that there is only one approach to the truth that transcends words"

Well, if said without any sort of context or justification, then yes just making blanket statements to the effect that there's only one approach to truth and liberation can be construed as triumphalism because it offers no precise assertions about what one views the causes of samsara to be, how they must be undone to attain liberation and total realization, or what liberation and realization mean to oneself.

I think the offense in these arguments typically stems from a lack of precision in how they're set forth. For instance, if we vaguely refer to a spiritual path and vaguely refer to some end result without determining if the paths are actually comparable in their approach or concerns or if the goal of each path is even identical, we find ourselves in this arena of people on one side feeling "all paths lead to the same ocean and it's triumphalist to say any one path is superior," and people on the other side saying "no other path leads directly to the truth; my path does, so it's superior." In fact, it generally really turns out that this argument is one of apples and oranges from beginning to end: neither path has the same ideas about what our existential predicament is and what to do about it, nor do they have the same idea of what ultimate truth and realization actually is, but we argue as if they do. If we speak more precisely and distinguish what, say, Taoism says and what Dzogchen says, we'll likely find that Taosism will not and does not claim to lead to the same realization as Dzogchen, nor would it want to, and that Dzogchen will not and does not claim to lead to the realization of Taoism, nor would it want to.

As such, it would perfectly ok and not arrogant or elitist or triumphalist at all to say that any teaching that lacks clear teachings and methods elucidating interdependent origination, emptiness of self and phenomena, the infallibility of karma, and so on--which is what Buddhism is concerned with--cannot lead directly to liberation or total realization as defined by Buddhism. That would be absolutely fine and true. Other paths themselves don't claim they will lead to Buddhism's idea of liberation and total realization, so there's no problem. They won't be hurt that we say their path isn't trying to go where we want ours to take us. They're perfectly happy with their own beliefs and aims. We Buddhists can have our own beliefs and aims and others can have theirs and we can still respect each other, support each other, and wish each other well on our respective paths without "secretly looking down on them for being so foolish to think their path is the truth." Feel me?

wisdom wrote:There are many references to emptiness in the translations I'm reading by John Cleary.

Emptiness in Taoism and emptiness in Buddhism are totally different. Taoism is an eternalist, subtantialist school. "Spirit" is real and substantial (but may not be eternal) and qi (chi) is real and substantial and pervades the universe in different forms. Enlightenment in Taoism is essentially becoming a master of qi and thus attaining a real spiritual immortality. Emptiness in Taoism is never actually empty but is an interplay between different kinds of qi and other forces as exemplified in the yin-yang symbol.

John Cleary (and his brother I think) has done great work but they are a bit like Thurman's idiosyncratic translations.

I do love the teachings on energy, I find them clear, concise, and to the point. I also enjoy how Daoism makes a distinction between Inner and Outer "Medicines". The outer being transformative energies related to the physical body, the latter being transformative energies related to mind and spirit.

That is 100% Taoism.

In the translations of Cleary, there is also repeated statements saying that the true medicine, the gold elixer, the pill, and so forth is nothing other than abiding in your own ultimate nature, which is free from mental constructs, elaborations, symbols, projections, and is open and spontaneous.

But what he doesn't tell you is that this is essentially created through the alchemical transformations in Taoism by refining qi. Also different Taoist schools may hold different views on this. But it is not Buddhist abiding in your own ultimate nature.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Kirt, like must be compared with like. Buddhism equally has practices that manipulate the channels, winds and bindus. There is little functional difference whether it is within Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist context.Are we going to dismiss Buddhism as not understanding emptiness because it has these methods? Are we going to call it eternalist because of the focus on attaining the rainbow body? The fact of the matter is that even within Buddhism there are many approaches we would have to dismiss if we apply the same criteria you are applying to Taoism.

Nobody would deny that there are conceptual differences between Buddhism and Taoism. The question is whether there is a substantial difference in the non-conceptual understanding. For a couple of millennia, Chinese sages have said no there is not. From my experiences, I am inclined to agree with them. Words and concepts are only useful as tools. How foolish it would be to say that our real nature is only accessible via one historical institution and doctrine, one thought process, one dogma! The pure fact of awareness is owned by no one.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Karma Dorje wrote:Kirt, like must be compared with like. Buddhism equally has practices that manipulate the channels, winds and bindus.

And you are comparing apples and oranges because the conception and use of these practices are totally different. Esoteric Buddhism conceives of and uses the channels entirely differntly. To gloss, wind is being purified and ultimately disovled in the central channel. Wind is not qi (chi). Also the channels, etc. are actually non-substantial wisdom.

In Taoism, a differnt set of channels is used but channels are considered real, not functional and not made of wisdom. Qi is refined but it really, substantially exists and is not composed of wisdom. This is the primary differnce between the two approaches. Taoism is really a substantialist, eternalist school. Qi really exists.

There is little functional difference whether it is within Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist context.

The three views and approaches are entirely differnt and there is a functional difference. Hinduism and Taoism at the most attained points are the pinnacle of the non-Buddhist teachings but are still in samsara.

Are we going to dismiss Buddhism as not understanding emptiness because it has these methods? Are we going to call it eternalist because of the focus on attaining the rainbow body?

Of course not because in Buddhism we are using method to realize the ultimate truth of dependant arising. This is totally different from Taoism and it's interplay with various kinds of qi. Taoism also has a kind of rainbow body, but it is totally different and is substantialist. If you study with a Taoist teacher they would tell you all of this as a matter of the training.

The fact of the matter is that even within Buddhism there are many approaches we would have to dismiss if we apply the same criteria you are applying to Taoism.

In a sense of course. The lower school approaches are stepping stones to the higher schools. But the lowest Buddhist view is still higher than the most accomplished Taoist view because accomplishment in the lowest Buddhist view means that a person can attain Arhatship whereas accomplishment in the most accomplished Taoist view still leaves one in samsara as a kind of eternal (or very long lived) sage. Whether Taoist masters actually attain that or not can be debated because they are advancing a kind of existence outside of that normally taught in Buddhism as a kind of permanent non-substantial sage. If they don't attain that then they return in the next life to finish, etc. from their POV. From a Buddhist POV most Taoists would perform positive actions and so are propelled to a higher existance.

The question is whether there is a substantial difference in the non-conceptual understanding. For a couple of millennia, Chinese sages have said no there is not.

Sure, this is the classic Chinese intellectual position advanced to accommodate Buddhism, Taoism and Confucism. It's wrong and both Chinese Buddhists and Taoists would say so, just not publicly.

The pure fact of awareness is owned by no one.

You've misunderstood Taoist meditation from the start. It does not take awareness itself as an object at any time. It's focused on qi development and refinement from the start.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

Why do people always want a grand pronouncement in either direction..is it the same or not the same..who knows, since no one here is enlightened we have no idea whether they lead to the same place or not.

I think though what Kirt says in terms of the perceivable goals being different makes sense though. It seems like Daoism energy practices are actually similar in many ways to Vajrayana, but the end goal is a kind of eternal existence..in this sense obviously (on the surface at least) it is different from Buddhism.

Is it triumphalism to point out they appear different? Indeed, maybe they do lead to the same place, but since none of us are there yet it seems equally myopic to make a claim that they must somehow be the same as to say they must be different, all we can go by is what we see conventionally from the two schools of thought.

How can you try to compare two non-conceptual understandings, since the end goal is not one or many, this or that? Either direction is trying to condition what is unconditional, so these things can only be compared relatively, we are limited to comparing the schools of thought and practices, asking whether they are "the same" or different on an ultimate level seems to me exactly the kind of conjecture we should avoid if we really want to be sort of ecumenical.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

kirtu wrote:You've misunderstood Taoist meditation from the start. It does not take awareness itself as an object at any time. It's focused on qi development and refinement from the start.Kirt

Oh really? From the Scripture on Clarity and Stillness Taishang laojun shuo chang qingjing miaojing of the Quanzhen school:

Lord Lao wrote:Abiding in suchness, the Six Desires do not arise, The Three Poisons are dispersed and destroyed. Whoever cannot accomplish this Has not yet settled the heart-mind;Desires have not yet been banished.If you can abolish desires, Internally gazing into the heart-mind, You see that in actuality there is no heart-mind.

Externally gazing into form, You see that in actuality there is no form.Remotely gazing into things, You see that in actuality there are no things.When you awaken to these three, Only then do you gain a glimpse into emptiness.

Using emptiness to observe emptiness, You see that emptiness is not empty. When even emptiness does not exist, You see that no-thingness is indeed no-thing.Without even the nonexistence of no-thingness, There is only clear and constant silence.

Does that look much like eternalism to you?

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

kirtu wrote:You've misunderstood Taoist meditation from the start. It does not take awareness itself as an object at any time. It's focused on qi development and refinement from the start.Kirt

Oh really? From the Scripture on Clarity and Stillness Taishang laojun shuo chang qingjing miaojing of the Quanzhen school:....Does that look much like eternalism to you?

No but it would be a mistake to interpret that excerpt through a Buddhist gestalt. One would need to ask a Taoist master/teacher how they understood it.

I am not familiar with this school of Taoism since I no longer study Taoism but looking them up their focus is internal alchemy which is what I have been talking about about the generation and refinement of qi.

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

kirtu wrote:You've misunderstood Taoist meditation from the start. It does not take awareness itself as an object at any time. It's focused on qi development and refinement from the start.Kirt

Oh really? From the Scripture on Clarity and Stillness Taishang laojun shuo chang qingjing miaojing of the Quanzhen school:....Does that look much like eternalism to you?

No but it would be a mistake to interpret that excerpt through a Buddhist gestalt. One would need to ask a Taoist master/teacher how they understood it.

I am not familiar with this school of Taoism since I no longer study Taoism but looking them up their focus is internal alchemy which is what I have been talking about about the generation and refinement of qi.

Kirt

Actually, it is entirely consistent to interpret such scriptures through the lens of Buddhist thought, as they were likely produced by an engagement with the Buddhist tradition during the time of great spiritual ferment in Tang dynasty China. Of course this is much the same way that Shankaradvaita evolved.

"Alchemy" or neidan is obviously an important component of all Taoist practice. However, cultivating clarity (qingjing) and inner observation (neiguang) are equally as important and not at all different from calm abiding and insight meditation.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

I do not understand this incessant desire to have to make them (everything) the same. It is as useless as having to make them (everything) different.

There is Daoism, there is Dzogchen, there is Hindusim, there is Buddhism, there is Christianity, there is Islam, there is... Choose whichever your karma tells you is the best for you, and go for it. Why this incessant desire to compare? To validate and invalidate???

Do you practice Daoism? Go and practice it. See where it takes you. Can you apply Dzogchen principles to the practice? Bully for you! Do that too.

Is it so necessary to convince everybody else of the supposed validity of your position? Isn't it enough that you find it valid? Do you want people to prove you wrong? They will prove you wrong. Do you want people to verify what you feel? They will verify what you feel.

You are just going to end up at square one again anyway: Me and my mind.

And that is why this thread (being in contravention of clause 2 of the Terms of Service) is fast approaching lock down. That is why clause 2 exists.

kirtu wrote:You've misunderstood Taoist meditation from the start. It does not take awareness itself as an object at any time. It's focused on qi development and refinement from the start.Kirt

Oh really? From the Scripture on Clarity and Stillness Taishang laojun shuo chang qingjing miaojing of the Quanzhen school:

Lord Lao wrote:Abiding in suchness, the Six Desires do not arise, The Three Poisons are dispersed and destroyed. Whoever cannot accomplish this Has not yet settled the heart-mind;Desires have not yet been banished.If you can abolish desires, Internally gazing into the heart-mind, You see that in actuality there is no heart-mind.

Externally gazing into form, You see that in actuality there is no form.Remotely gazing into things, You see that in actuality there are no things.When you awaken to these three, Only then do you gain a glimpse into emptiness.

Using emptiness to observe emptiness, You see that emptiness is not empty. When even emptiness does not exist, You see that no-thingness is indeed no-thing.Without even the nonexistence of no-thingness, There is only clear and constant silence.

Does that look much like eternalism to you?

The Qingjing Jing is actually a good example of a Daoist scripture so influenced by Buddhism it is essentially plagiarism. I am fine with it myself, though it does sort of blur the lines of how Buddhism is different from Daoism. Similar case with the vedanta of shankara. It is not so easy to denounce such Hinduism as adharma when all the major features are taking straight from Buddhism and put in Hinduist dressing.

And generally Daoism is a very heterogeneous religion. As far as aims go, much more so than the schools of Buddhism. You've got immortality, sexual alchemy, spirit appeasement all mixed up with what people idolise as "philosophical" Daoism. Ie, the writings of Laozi and zhuangzi and their goals of the sage living in harmony with the Dao.

The latter part is what correlates most to Buddhism. I personally think of it as a different path to a similar-ish goal. I say similar-ish because Daoism asks different spiritual questions and has different concerns than Buddhism. They overlap in looking for an impersonal truth inside one's own mind through a non action that goes beyond preference and belief and I personally believe that in this overlap they stumble on a shared truth. But they also diverge on many points leading up to this converge and afterwards as well. The final truth of Buddhism is so much embellishment for Daoism. The final truth of Daoism stops short of the buddhist goal and is at best pratyeka buddhahood for mahayana Buddhists. And that glosses over things like karma and rebirth. In between all that is also much common territory worth appreciating. I think of Daoism as being "in the family" of liberating paths. Albeit not quite the same liberation Buddhism strives for.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hellI would endure it for myriad lifetimes As your companion in practice" --- Gandavyuha Sutra

kirtu wrote:John Cleary (and his brother I think) has done great work but they are a bit like Thurman's idiosyncratic translations.

I had wondered if maybe the translator was just biased towards Buddhism, or if these similarities really existed. I suppose I will need to see if anyone else has translated some of these texts and see how they compare.

gregkavarnos wrote:I do not understand this incessant desire to have to make them (everything) the same. It is as useless as having to make them (everything) different.

There is Daoism, there is Dzogchen, there is Hindusim, there is Buddhism, there is Christianity, there is Islam, there is... Choose whichever your karma tells you is the best for you, and go for it. Why this incessant desire to compare? To validate and invalidate???

Do you practice Daoism? Go and practice it. See where it takes you. Can you apply Dzogchen principles to the practice? Bully for you! Do that too.

Is it so necessary to convince everybody else of the supposed validity of your position? Isn't it enough that you find it valid? Do you want people to prove you wrong? They will prove you wrong. Do you want people to verify what you feel? They will verify what you feel.

You are just going to end up at square one again anyway: Me and my mind.

Greg: I can only speak for myself. I have almost no desire to compare and/or validate. I have studied with Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist masters. In the same way as Tibetan Buddhist practice incorporates different practices from different vehicles, preserving their unique viewpoint and praxis, one can quite easily practice other viewpoints and make use of their strengths where they are appropriate. These three streams share so much in common that it seems curious to me to desire to invalidate any of them. One can't say the same of Abrahamic religions (not to say that there are not wonderful aspects and saintly practitioners of these systems). I see only like being compared with like, and the OP was asking whether anyone else appreciated Taoist texts that he found edifying.

No disrespect intended, but I sincerely hope that square one for me is not you and your mind, vast though it may be.

gregkavarnos wrote:And that is why this thread (being in contravention of clause 2 of the Terms of Service) is fast approaching lock down. That is why clause 2 exists.

To shut down good faith discussions amongst practitioners? I don't see anything in this thread where it is claimed that Taoism is superior to Buddhism. Nor do I see anything acrimonious and disruptive. If it is always off limits to discuss anything outside of Buddhist topics, this thread should have been locked at the OP. Or is it only when everyone arrives at a triumphalist conclusion that such threads are permissible?

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

are among my favorite books. I really like holographic books where you can open up any page and get the flavor of the entire book.

Homage to my first Teacher, John Brzostoski, who pointed out the Chinese Masters hiding in the rocks and trees of Chinese paintings when he taught the I Ching, the Lotus Sutra and the Bardo Thodol in a one night a week, one semester, course at the New School in 1965, with no conflict at all between Daoism and Buddhism: very Dzogchen!

ob

Last edited by oldbob on Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.